[Cite as In re L.H. , 2021-Ohio-2850.]

COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

: JUDGES: : : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. IN RE L.H. (2) : : Case No. 21CA000010 : : : : : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 19JC00455

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:

APPEARANCES: August 18, 2021

For Father-Appellant: For GCCS-Appellee:

JEANETTE M. MOLL MELISSA M. WILSON Jeanette M . Moll LLC 274 Highland Ave. P.O. Box 461 Cambridge, OH 43725 Zanesville , OH 43702Guernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 2

Delaney, J. {¶1} Father-Appellant T.H. appeals the March 29, 2021 judgment entry of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division awardi ng permanent custody of his children, L.H. and L.H., to Appellee Guernsey Co unty Children Services.

FACTS AND PROC EDURAL HISTORY {¶2} Father-Appellant T.H. and Mother are the biological parent s of twin children,

L.H. and L.H. The children were born on October 7, 2014 . Father and Mother are not

married. {¶3} Mother was the custodial parent of the children. It did no t appear from the record that Mother and Father had any relationship together aft er the children were born. Shortly after the children were born, Appellee Guernsey County Children Services (“GCCS”) started receiving reports regarding the children conce rning drug abuse by Mother, that Mother frequently moved, or that Mother left the c hildren with inappropriate people. GCCS had responded to approximately 25 to 30 reports. O n August 6, 2019, GCCS received a report that Mother was using methamphetamine an d she was living with an ex-boyfriend released from prison after serving time fo r manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine. GCCS put an out-of-home safety pl an in place for the children. The safety plan was discontinued on August 16, 2019, because the caretaker tested positive for fentanyl. {¶4} Mother signed a voluntary agreement for care on August 16, 2019. The children were placed in a foster home on August 16, 2019. Mothe r entered into a new voluntary agreement with GCCS on September 16, 2019. The volunt ary agreement was extended on October 15, 2019 and November 14, 2019.Guernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 3

{¶5} From September 16, 2019 to November 2019, Mother was parti cipating in services and tested negative for drugs. GCCS started progressiv e visitation with Mother. Mother, however, had taken a drug screen in November 2019 and t he results were received in December 2019, showing a positive drug screen for o xycodone, for which Mother did not have a prescription. {¶6} On December 12, 2019, the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division filed an ex parte order for custody of the ch ildren to GCCS. GCCS filed a complaint on December 12, 2019, alleging the children were de pendent and requested temporary custody. A probable cause hearing was held on Decembe r 12, 2019. By judgment entry issued on December 17, 2019, the trial court fou nd probable cause to believe the children were dependent children. The trial court a ppointed counsel for Mother and Father. The CASA was appointed as the children’s Guardian a d Litem. (Judgment Entry, Dec. 17, 2019). {¶7} On February 12, 2020, GCCS filed the case plan for Mother. On February 14, 2020, Father moved to be added to the case plan. {¶8} The trial court held the adjudicatory hearing on February 14, 2020. Via judgment entry filed February 18, 2020, the trial court adjudic ated the children dependent pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(C). The trial court continued the temp orary custody of the

children with GCCS. {¶9} The trial court held a dispositional hearing on March 6, 2020. Mother failed to appear at the hearing. Via judgment entry filed March 6, 202 0, the trial court added Father to the case plan. The amended case plan was filed on Mar ch 19, 2020.Guernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 4

{¶10} A review hearing was held on May 29, 2020. Father failed to appear at the hearing. {¶11} GCCS filed a motion for an annual review hearing on July 27, 2020. The trial court held a Review Hearing and Annual Review Hearing on August 28, 2020. The trial court granted a six-month extension of temporary custody of the children to GCCS. (Judgment Entry, Sept. 3, 2020). {¶12} On December 9, 2020, GCCS filed a motion to modify dispos itional orders to that of permanent custody of the children to GCCS. {¶13} The permanent custody hearing was held on March 18, 2021. While Mother was personally served with notice of the hearing, Mother failed to appear. Father appeared at the hearing with counsel. The following evidence wa s adduced at the hearing. {¶14} Amanda Kennedy, the ongoing caseworker with GCCS, had bee n involved with the case since August 2019. Kennedy made no mention of Fat her’s involvement with the care of the children or relationship with the children prio r to GCCS removing them from Mother’s care. The March 19, 2020 amended case plan stated that Father had no contact with the children for approximately three years. {¶15} When the children were first removed based on Mother’s vo luntary agreement, Mother was on a case plan and doing well. She receiv ed a positive drug screen in November 2019 and an ex parte order for temporary cus tody was granted on December 12, 2019. Mother’s case plan required her to complete a drug and alcohol assessment and follow recommendations; participate in random dr ug screens; obtain a psychological assessment including a parenting assessment; and meet the children’sGuernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 5

needs with housing, food, and medical needs. Mother completed h er drug and alcohol assessment with Cedar Ridge on September 3, 2019 and was diagno sed with opioid use disorder and amphetamine type use disorder. Mother was discharg ed from Cedar Ridge on June 23, 2020 for her failure to attend. She reengaged servi ces in October 2020 but was discharged on January 21, 2021. Mother did not refuse drug testing but consistently tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. {¶16} Mother participated in supervised visitation with the chi ldren. Her appearance at visitation was inconsistent but Kennedy said her visitation attendance was more consistent at the time of the permanent custody hearing. T he children’s visitation with Mother went well and the children appeared to be bonded to Mother. {¶17} GCCS moved for permanent custody due to concerns that Mot her continued to abuse illegal substances, inconsistencies with her visitation, and noncompliance with her services and case plan objectives. {¶18} Father was added to the case plan on March 19, 2020. The case plan stated Father was to obtain a drug and alcohol assessment and follow t he recommendations. Kennedy testified that Father completed an assessment on March 10, 2020 with Cedar Ridge where he was diagnosed with opioid use disorder, cannabis use disorder, and unspecified bipolar and related disorder. Cedar Ridge recommend ed individual therapy,

case managem ent, crisis support as need ed, and urinalysis as ne eded. Kennedy testified Father only attended his intake and assessment and then attende d a couple of case management but did not attend any other appointments. Father de nied doing an assessment or counseling with Cedar Ridge because he stated no one at Cedar Ridge would return his phone calls. Father was also to complete a men tal health assessment,Guernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 6

but he was discharged for his failure to follow through. Father testified that he had an appointment on March 24, 2021 with Guernsey Health Choices for drug and alcohol abuse counseling. {¶19} Father was diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease in 2004, which caused him chronic and sometimes debilitating pain. As part of his case pl an, Father was to take random drug screens. Father was open with all parties that he u sed marijuana to cope with the symptoms of Crohn’s Disease and he would not abstain f rom using marijuana due to his chronic illness. He tested positive for marijuana du ring the entirety of the case. Father testified that he had a medical provider, but due to ins urance and other issues, he could not afford medication to assist with managing his Crohn’s Disease. Kennedy suggested to Father that he obtain a medical marijuana card, bu t Father had not pursued that option at the time of the permanent custody hearing. {¶20} Father also tested positive for Suboxone, oxycodone, and cocaine. Father admitted to taking Subo xone and oxyco done to manage his chronic pain but did not have a prescription for those medications. He testified he did not i ntentionally take cocaine but perhaps his marijuana had been laced with cocaine without his k nowledge. {¶21} The case plan also required Father to maintain employment and housing. Father was employed at Bob Evans but was laid off due to the pa ndemic. Kennedy testified that Father has an unspecified side job. He also rece ived SSI. Kennedy testified that initially, Father had a rental residence. A week later, Fa ther moved to a different rental residence. GCCS inspected the home and was concerned about the structure of the home. Father and the landlord had several disputes, involving t he water being shut off, the driveway being blocked, and the landlord allegedly damaging the tires of Father’s car.Guernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 7

Father reported being homeless in August. Father then lived at a residence that did not have heat or running water. Father next resided at a hotel from December 2020 to February 2021. Father’s last known address was with his sister. The sister would not permit GCCS in the home. {¶22} There was no testimony in the record as to Father’s relat ionship with the children prior to GCCS involvement. The case plan permitted Fat her biweekly supervised visitation. Kennedy testified that Father had recently been inc onsistent with his visitation due to transportation issues, and he was working more since his fiancé went to rehab. During the visits, Father was appropriate. He brought the child ren food and interacted

with the children. Father testified he loved his children. {¶23} Kennedy testified that with additional time, Father would not be able to reunify with the children due to his consistent noncompliance. He had moved residences multiple times, the residences were not appropriate for the chi ldren, and he had no compliance with the recommendations of Cedar Ridge. {¶24} At the time of the hearing, the children were six years o ld. The children had been placed with the same foster parents since Mother entered i nto the voluntary agreement with GCCS. The children were bonded with the foster p arents and called them “Mom” and “Dad.” The children called Mother by her first name. The children did not have any medical or psychological diagnoses. One child was starting mental health therapy because the child was becoming physically aggressive with the s ibling. At the time of the hearing, the children were in kindergarten and doing okay in sc hool. {¶25} GCCS had explored multiple kinship options given by Mothe r. Maternal Grandmother had previously cared for the children but stated sh e would need a lot of helpGuernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 8

due to the children’s behavior. The foster parents had not obse rved the behavioral issues expressed by Maternal Grandmother. GCCS explored placement of t he children with friends of Mother, but either the individuals had moved out of the area or were not approved due to background and child welfare checks. Father had no recommendations for kinship placement. Father’s adult son had initially contact ed GCCS to inquire about placement with the children but did not respond when GCCS follo wed up with him. {¶26} The Guardian ad Litem recommended the trial court award p ermanent custody of the children to GCCS. {¶27} On March 29, 2021, the trial court issued its judgment en try awarding permanent custody of the children to GCCS. It first found the c hildren could not be placed with the parents within a reasonable time or should not be plac ed with the parents. GCCS provided case planning and diligent efforts to assist the paren ts in remedying the problems that initially caused the children to be placed outsid e of the home, but the parents failed to continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the children to be placed outside of the home. The tria l court additionally found the parents demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the childr en by failing to consistently visit with them and by not providing an adequate p ermanent home for the children. The trial court finally found the termination of pare ntal rights would be in the best

interest of the children. {¶28} It is from this judgment that Father now appeals.Guernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 9

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR {¶29} Father raises three Assignments of Error: {¶30} “I. THE APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HIS TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO FILE A M OTION

FOR A SIX MONTH EXTENSION BASED UPON THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC AND TH E

INSUFFICIENT TIME PROVIDED TO FATHER TO PROGRESS ON HIS CASE PL AN

AND/OR FAILED TO OPPOSE THE PERMANENT CUSTODY MOTION ON THE SAM E

GROUNDS. {¶31} “II. THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE BEST

INTERESTS OF THE MINOR CHILDREN WOULD BE SERVED BY GRANTING OF

PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE

EVIDENCE. {¶32} “III. THERE WAS NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE FOR THE

TRIAL COURT TO FIND THAT THE MINOR CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE PLACE D

WITH APPELLANT AND THAT IT WAS IN THE MINOR CHILDREN’S BEST INT EREST

TO BE PLACED IN THE PERMANENT CUSTODY OF GUERNSEY COUNTY

CHILDREN’S SERVICES.”

ANALYSIS

I. INEFFECTIVE ASSIST ANCE OF COUNSEL {¶33} In his first Assignment of Error, Father contends he rece ived ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to request an additional six-month extension. We disagree.Guernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 10

{¶34} To succeed on a claim of ineffectiveness, a defendant mus t satisfy a twoprong test. Initially, a defendant must show that trial counsel acted incompetently. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). In assessing such claims , “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's condu ct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defen dant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged actio n ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” Id . at 689, citing Michel v. Louisiana , 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158 (1955). {¶35} “There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case. Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a par ticular client in the same way.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689. The question is whether counsel acted “outsi de the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Id . at 690. {¶36} Even if a defendant shows that counsel was incompetent, t he defendant must then satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test. Under this “actual prejudice” prong, the defendant must show that “there is a reasonable prob ability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding w ould have been different.”

Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694. {¶37} Father contends his trial counsel was incompetent for fai ling to request a

six-month extension that was warranted due to several circumsta nces. One of the reasons Father argues includes was his inability to meet his ca se plan goals because of the limitations imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Father also c ontends that if given more time, he could obtain stable housing. Based on the record, we find trial counsel’s choice to proceed with the permanent custody hearing without fi ling a motion for anGuernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 11

additional six-month extension fell within the range of reasona ble conduct and Father cannot demonstrate that there was a reasonable probability the result of the proceeding

would have been different. {¶38} The trial court filed the ex parte order granting GCCS te mporary custody of the children on December 12, 2019. On March 9, 2020, the Govern or of Ohio issued Executive Order 2020-01D and declared a state of emergency in O hio in response to COVID-19. A national emergency was declared on March 13, 2020. GCCS added Father to the case plan on March 19, 2020. On March 22, 2020, the Ohio Department of Health issued a stay at home order. GCCS filed the motion to modify th e dispositional order to permanent custody on December 9, 2020. The permanent custody he aring was held on March 18, 2021. Father argues this timeline allowed him only ei ght months to complete his case plan. A six-month extension, he argues, would have per mitted him time to complete his case plan objectives. {¶39} GCCS argues in response to Father’s Assignment of Error t hat Father’s failure to complete his case plan objectives was due to his beh avior, not the pandemic. One of the case plan objectives was to complete a drug and alco hol assessment and follow all recommendations. According to Kennedy’s testimony, F ather completed his intake with Cedar Ridge on March 10, 2020. Kennedy testified Fa ther had appo intments scheduled with Cedar Ridge and she reviewed the dates of his ap pointments with Cedar Ridge: March 11, 2020 case management – no show; March 13, 2020 case management – present; March 17, 2020 case management – no show; March 25, 2020 individual counseling – no show; March 27, 2020 individual telehealth coun seling – no show; July 20, 2020 case management – present; August 25, 2020 case manage ment – FatherGuernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 12

canceled; January 19, 2021 intake ass essment – no show; January 29, 2021 intake assessment – no show. (T. 23). Father had no memory of being se en by Cedar Ridge and argued he could not schedule an appointment with them. (T. 74). {¶40} The case plan objective also required Father to take rand om drug screens. Before, during, and after the pandemic guidelines, Father teste d positive for marijuana. Father used marijuana to manage the symptoms of his Crohn’s Dis ease. Sympathetic to Father’s chronic pain, Kennedy encouraged Father to seek out a medical marijuana card, to prevent Father from again using marijuana laced with a more severe illegal substance such as cocaine. (T. 72, 85). At the hearing, Father agreed tha t Kennedy had recommended he seek out a medical marijuana card but he did not follow up. He stated that about two months before the hearing, he got information fr om his sister regarding the medical marijuana program and he was now looking into it. (T. 7 2). There was no evidence presented at the hearing that the COVID-19 pandemic or related guidelines prevented Father from exploring and/or obtaining a medical mari juana card to address the symptoms of his chronic illness. Father testified that he h ad used marijuana since he was nine-years-old. {¶41} Kennedy was asked at the hearing that if given more time, could Father reunify with the children. (T. 30). Kennedy testified that she did not believe he would be able to reunify with additional time because he had been noncom pliant for the pendency of the case and continued to fail drug screens as recently as M arch 2021. (T. 30). {¶42} Based on the record in this case, we do not agree that tr ial counsel was deficient for choosing not to request an additional extension o f six months to allow Father to complete his case plan. We agree the pandemic could have mad e obtaining servicesGuernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 13

more complicated, but it appeared from Kennedy’s testimony that Father had appointments scheduled with Cedar Ridge during the state of eme rgency and he did not attend the appointments. The pandemic also did not prevent Fath er from abstaining from illegal drug use or seeking out a legal option to obtain mariju ana to address the symptoms of his chronic illness. While housing and employment were also elements of Father’s case plan, the record shows Father failed to address two essential c omponents of his case plan throughout the pendency of the case. {¶43} Father’s first Assignment of Error is overruled.

II. and III. BEST INTERESTS {¶44} In his second and third Assignments of Error, Father argu es the trial court erred in finding it was in the best interests of the children t o terminate Father’s parental rights. We disagree. {¶45} As an appellate court, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Our role is to determine whether there is relevant, competent, and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base its judgment. Cross Truck v.

Jeffries , 5th Dist. Stark No. CA5758 (Feb. 10, 1982). Accordingly, judg ments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evi dence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr ., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). {¶46} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court mus t follow when deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) ma ndates the trial court schedule a hearing and provide notice upon the filing of a moti on for permanent custodyGuernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 14

of a child by a public children services agency or private chil d placing agency that has temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long- term foster care. {¶47} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the ju venile court to grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private a gency if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) the child is not abandoned or orphaned, and the child cannot be placed with eith er of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child 's parents; (b) the child is abandoned; (c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody; or (d) the child has been in the tem porary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placeme nt agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18,

1999. {¶48} In determining the best interest of the child at a perman ent custody hearing, R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all rel evant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and inte rrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and ou t-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the wi shes of the child as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; (3) the custodial history of the child; (4) the child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of pla cement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody; and (5) whether any of th e factors in division (E)(7) to (11) of R.C. 2151.414 apply in relation to the parents and c hild.Guernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 15

{¶49} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged ana lysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstan ces delineated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding

the best interest of the child.

Reasonable Time {¶50} If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the focus turn s to whether the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable p eriod of time or should not be placed with the parents. Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial c ourt must consider all relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial c ourt is required to enter such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing eviden ce, that one or more of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist wi th respect to each of the child's parents. In his appellate argument, Father reviews the R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), and (4) factors to argue the judgment of the trial court that t he children could not be placed with Father within a reasonable time period or should not be pl aced with Father was against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶51} R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) states: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's ho me and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts b y the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially cau sed the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuous ly and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the c hild to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the par ents haveGuernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 16

substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consid er parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other s ocial and

rehabilitative services and material resources that were made a vailable to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to all ow them to resume and maintain parental duties. Father contends he had made some progress on his case plan as t o a drug and alcohol

assessment. The record in this case shows that while Father com pleted the intake assessment with Cedar Ridge and attended some appointments (whi ch Father denied doing), Father’s testimony shows he took no other action to mee t that case plan objective until scheduling an appointment on March 24, 2021 with Guernsey Health Choices. Father argues he could not meet his case plan objectives during the pandemic but the record shows Father had appointments scheduled with Cedar Ridge during the pandemic

and Father did not appear for the appointments. {¶52} Father was to obtain stable housing and employment as par t of his case plan objectives. Kennedy testified that Father was working more while his fiancé was in rehab, but Father denied having employment. He received SSI due to his Crohn’s Disease. Father had inconsistent and inappropriate housing duri ng the case until he moved in with his sister. GCCS, however, was not permitted by t he sister to enter her home to determine its suitability for the children. {¶53} R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) states the trial court should conside r, Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, intellectual disability, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanen t homeGuernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 17

for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within o ne year after the court holds the hearing pursuant to division (A) of this se ction or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code; In 2004, Father was diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease, a chronic i nflammatory bowel disease. He testified the disease was severe, resulting in mult iple surgeries and chronic pain, which was sometimes debilitating. The chronic illness lim ited his ability to work. To manage his symptoms, Father used marijuana. The marijuana utili zed by Father, however, was not legally obtained as Father did not have a medi cal marijuana card. Father argues on appeal that with more time, he could obtain hi s medical marijuana card. {¶54} The record shows that Father was informed of medical mari juana by Kennedy but Father testified he did not start looking into obta ining a medical marijuana card until the permanent custody hearing. During the pendency o f this case, Father has tested positive for illegal substances such as marijuana, cocai ne, oxycodone, and Suboxone. He conjectured he testified positive for cocaine due to a laced marijuana joint. He admitted to taking the Suboxone and oxycodone to control his pain but did not have a prescription for those medications. Father testified at the h earing that he had used marijuana since he was nine-years-old. (T. 71). The record in t his case shows that Father is chemically dependent on marijuana and while it does manage t he symptoms of his chronic illness, the record does not show that Father explored legal means to manage his disease to meet his case plan objectives to reunify with his ch ildren. {¶55} Finally, R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) states, “The parent has demo nstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an un willingness to provide anGuernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 18

adequate permanent home for the child.” Father argues that he l oves his children and he

has attended visitation. He contends an extension would allow h im to make further progress. The testimony showed that Father did attend visitatio n, somewhat inconsistently, and was appropriate with the children. There is no evidence in the record, however, that Father had a relationship with the children prior to them being in the temporary custody of GCCS and a case plan established Father’s regular visitation.

Best Interests {¶56} Father argues that pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D), the tria l court erred when it determined the children’s best interests. We disagree. The t rial court found the children’s relationship with Mother and Father to be inconsiste nt. Both parents visited the children and the visits were appropriate, but the parents’ atte ndance at visitation was unreliable. The children were placed with the same foster famil y since the inception of the case on December 11, 2019. The children called the foster paren ts, “Mom” and “Dad.” The children were doing fine in school and had a normal routine for six-year-olds. The children were too young to express their wishes but the GAL rec ommended permanent custody to GCCS. {¶57} In this case, we find the judgment of the trial court to award permanent custody of the children to GCCS to be supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. Father’s second and third Assignments of Error are overruled.Guernsey County, Case No. 21CA000010 19

CONCLUSION {¶58} The judgment of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas , Juvenile

Division is affirmed. By: Delaney, J., Wise, John, P.J. and Wise, Earle, J., concur.